Analytic Lessons from Sherlock
Themes from Season I — Archenemies, Over Analysis, and the Need For More Data
One can easily debate who history’s greatest analysts were. Aristotle, Bacon, and Bayes — to name just a few I’ve written about before. More clear is history’s greatest fictional analyst. One might offer that it is quite elementary.
When the BBC booted up Sherlock Holmes in 2010, they drew quite directly from his mythology, but offered a modern variation. They also offered an interesting format with seasons consisting of roughly three episodes a piece and each episode running about an hour and a half. An interesting format, but useful for our purposes here.
Now before we go further, let’s clear up something important. While most famously associated with deductive reasoning, most of what Sherlock Holmes actually does is inductive in nature. This article doesn’t have time to pull that apart. Feel free to read more on it here.
This article won’t concern itself with various forms of reasoning. Instead, it will highlight the themes of the first three episodes. They are — analytically speaking — quite brilliant!
The Lost Art Of Archenemies
Watson: People don’t have archenemies.
Holmes: What?
Watson: In real life. People don’t have archenemies.
Holmes: That sounds a bit dull. So what do people have in their real lives?
Watson: Friends, people they like, people they don’t like, boyfriends, girlfriends.
Holmes: Like I said, dull.
I am a huge fan of archenemies. I have had a few. Archenemies create adversarial relationships. Nothing quite brings out the best in an analyst like a little competition. Archenemies take that to an all new level.
It is a theme that resonates through the entire series, but it is first introduced in episode one. Of course, Mycroft is hardly much of an archenemy. The fact that Sherlock is so keen at the thought of having one says much about his own… reasoning.
Over Analyzing
Episode two introduces a new interesting theme. Numerous barbs are used both by and against Sherlock Holmes. They poke fun at his nature of over analyzing situations when an easier approach is possible. It is the nature of many analysts to over analyze and even the great ones are not beyond reproach.
In plot terms, Sherlock is asked how he determined an old classmate had been traveling — expecting the classic Holmes explanation — only to be told “I asked your secretary”. It is quickly revealed that this was actually a lie, but it didn’t need to be. Later, to reinforce the point, Holmes is deep in his observations and behavioral analysis trying to determine where to look next when Watson declares the answer is written in the diary. Simple answers that easily replace more complex reasoning.
“Dunno. Dangerous to jump to conclusions. I need data.”
Episode three has a repeated emphasis — data. Numerous times Holmes laments about his need for more data. It is a theme that draws directly from the books. It has been reused in many of the movies as well.
No analyst operates without suitable data. This was true of Aristotle in the agora of ancient Greece. It was true of Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. So of course, it is also true of this modern day adaptation. An adaptation that occasionally flashes a cell phone, a search engine, and even talks about blogs.
Three different themes across three different episodes — the first season provided plenty of great content for analysts anywhere. From honing ones skills in adversarial relationships, to the dangers of over analyzing, to the perpetual need from more and better data — Sherlock is a profile in great analytics. So learn from the show — why let great entertainment go to waste?
Hopefully this article has added a little more. Thanks for reading!
More from Sherlock Holmes:
